An exam board will be fined £350,000 after more than 1,500 GCSE students received the wrong exam results last year.
The blunder over WJEC’s Eduqas GCSE food preparation and nutrition qualification meant hundreds of pupils had to be issued with the correct grade months later.
Regulator Ofqual also found the body had allowed thousands of papers to be reviewed by the same assessors who had originally marked at least part of them, breaking regulations.
Amanda Swann, Ofqual’s executive director for general qualifications, believes the penalty meted out to the WJEC reflects the “serious nature” of its “failures”.
“Students must be able to trust that their results accurately reflect their performance, and what they know, understand and can do.”
In all, 1,527 youngsters taking the qualification last summer received incorrect results.
The organisation failed “to adjust teachers’ marking of coursework – which made up 50 per cent of the qualification – to ensure results were in line with national standards”.
850 given worse grades
It was found that 847 students received lower grades than they deserved, with 680 benefitting from inflated results. Just over 17,600 did not need to be changed.
Those with worse marks were issued with the correct ones in October 2024. The WJEC decided those with higher marks “should keep them to avoid unfairly penalising students who may have already used those results”.
Ofqual is set to fine WJEC £175,000 for the case. The exam board will be ordered to cough up a further £175,000 for allowing 3,926 exam papers between 2017 and 2023 “to be reviewed by the same assessors who had originally marked at least part of them”.
One student had their grade increased last year following an independent review. WJEC also issued “credit notes as financial compensation to schools and colleges, for all affected reviews, totalling just over £219,000”.
Ofqual said the awarding body has “admitted the breaches, fully accepted responsibility, taken steps to prevent the problems happening again, and engaged fully with” the regulator.
A WJEC spokesperson said the organisation takes “full responsibility and acknowledge[s] that we did not meet the usual high standards expected of us”.
“We would like to sincerely apologise to the learners affected by these incidents.
“We want to reassure learners and centres that we have undertaken a thorough review of our processes and implemented appropriate measures to ensure such incidents do not occur again in the future.”
Earlier this year, WJEC was awarded licenses worth up to £13.9 million for two construction T Levels previously run by City and Guilds.
The government has paused an £8 million warm homes skills programme (WHSP) after some training providers jumped the gun and promoted courses before winners were officially confirmed.
In an email sent to bidders yesterday, the Midlands Net Zero Hub, which is running the programme on behalf of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), said the tender suspension was caused by “a few” applicants promoting WHSP-funded courses to potential learners before funding decisions had been made.
The WHSP is a flagship green skills programme where providers can bid for up to £1 million to deliver subsidised retrofit courses.
Colleges and training providers were expecting the funding competition results on Friday for training to begin from this Friday, August 1.
“This postponement has become necessary due to a breach of the competition guidance by a few applicants,” the email stated.
“Specifically, some applicants have publicised WHSP-funded training offers prior to the official announcement of funding decisions.”
The email confirmed that no applicants had received formal or informal confirmation of the outcome of their bids, and “premature promotion” of courses breached competition rules.
The DESNZ said it was “investigating the allegations and will address them appropriately”.
A spokesperson added: “Winners will be announced shortly, and there will be no delay to the scheme’s timeline.”
Retrofit
The WHSP aims to increase the supply of skilled workers in energy efficiency and retrofit. Applications for colleges and training providers to win a share of an £8 million fund to subsidise training closed in June.
Providers could bid for up to £1 million for “work packages” of qualifications geared towards entry-level training, upskilling workers for non-domestic buildings and training for specialist roles like retrofit assessors or solar installers.
Up to 9,000 retrofit professionals could be trained through the scheme by July 2026.
A £9.2 million phase two programme is in the works to run from 2026 to 2027, but hasn’t been confirmed.
The Department did not name which training providers had breached the rules when asked by FE Week.
Bidders were told yesterday that advertising courses before funding was approved breached the competition guidance. The guidance states that all publicity of courses funded through the project must be approved by the Midlands Net Zero Hub and that training providers must not start their project until the Hub has approved a signed grant agreement letter.
Local officials and an exam board have launched investigations into a Yorkshire college’s ESOL achievement rates.
Allegations of dodgy English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) results in 2023-24 have emerged at The Sheffield College.
The South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, which funds the college’s ESOL courses through the adult skills fund, is investigating the issue.
The college has suspended two senior staff members, according to local newspaper The Tribune, and launched its own internal investigation.
Awarding organisation City & Guilds has also launched an inquiry into the college’s delivery of ESOL courses and reportedly revoked the college’s “direct claims status”, which allows the college to mark exams and verify results without confirmation from the exam body.
The Sheffield College is currently the largest ESOL provider outside of London. It recorded over 7,500 leavers for its ESOL courses in each of the last two years.
The college had the highest ESOL achievement rates in the country in 2022-23, at 96.5 per cent, and ranked third in 2023-24 with 94.4 per cent.
A Sheffield College spokesperson said they are taking the matter “very seriously” and confirmed an initial internal investigation into “one of our academy areas has taken place”.
“This was in response to concerns raised about some achievement claims and associated certification for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students in 2023-24,” the statement said.
It added: “As investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment further until those have concluded.”
AoC support
The college reportedly conducted a previous investigation into “maladministration” of ESOL delivery but concluded there was no intentional manipulation of results.
But it has allegedly now suspended two senior staff members pending the outcome of this new internal investigation. The college’s spokesperson refused to confirm the suspensions.
Meanwhile, an external interim manager to lead the college’s ESOL department has been provided by the Association of Colleges.
The AoC refused to confirm who was leading the department.
An AoC spokesperson said: “It would be inappropriate to comment while the college’s initial internal investigation is ongoing.”
Sheffield College’s CEO and principal, Angela Foulkes, sits on the AoC board as Yorkshire and the Humber representative.
Large ASF allocations
South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, led by Oliver Coppard, has had a devolved adult skills fund (ASF) since 2021, and the college has repeatedly been awarded the largest share of the budget.
It received the top share (18 per cent) of over £7 million in ASF allocations from a £39.3 million budget in 2021-22.
The college’s core ASF income from the MCA grew to £10.2 million the next year, a quarter of the authority’s budget.
It increased a further 13 per cent to £11.58 million in 2023-24. The authority awarded the college an indicative £11.58 million allocation from the ASF 2024-25, over a third of its total £31.8 million budget.
A spokesperson for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) said: “We are aware of the situation and are in contact with Sheffield College. We are undertaking our own investigation, and the college is undertaking its own internal investigation, therefore we are unable to comment further while they are ongoing.”
An outstanding London college has appointed a new leader following the retirement of its long-serving principal and CEO.
Governors at West Thames College have promoted Marta Gajewska (pictured above) to the top job after four years as vice principal for curriculum and quality.
She succeeds Tracy Aust, who has stood down after 27 years at the college, spending the last nine as principal and CEO.
The college described Gajewska as “a passionate advocate for inclusive, high-quality education with a bold vision and deep commitment to student success”.
Gajewska joined the college as director of core skills in 2016 before becoming vice principal in 2021. Before West Thames, she was head of teaching and learning at East Berkshire College.
West Thames is one of London’s smallest general further education colleges, reporting a total income of £24.1 million for the 2023-24 financial year. It employed 255 staff and enrolled 5,300 students that year across its two campuses in west London.
Ofsted graded the college ‘outstanding’ in January following a full inspection, praising its “life-changing” impact on disadvantaged students.
Tracy Aust
Aust said: “It’s not the Ofsted ‘outstanding’ that means the most to me, it’s the fact that we are able to provide an outstanding student experience for each and every student who walks through our door.
“That has always been my personal goal and what has driven me to do the role I do in a sector which genuinely transforms lives.”
On her watch, Gajewska said the college’s “unwavering commitment to excellence continues.”
“We will keep raising the bar, ensuring every student receives the support, education and opportunities they need to thrive. Whatever your background, whatever your goals, we’re here to help you succeed,” she added.
The Department for Education overspent its apprenticeships budget for the first time last year in what has been described as a “landmark moment”.
Experts now fear further apprenticeship spending restrictions may follow the scrapping of public subsidy for level 7 programmes and warned there is “limited” headroom for funding non-apprenticeship courses through the reformed growth and skills levy.
England’s apprenticeships budget in 2024-25 was originally set at £2.658 billion before rising to £2.729 billion partway through the financial year.
DfE’s recently published annual accounts show apprenticeship spending hit £2.781 billion, meaning a £123 million (4.6 per cent) overspend on the original budget and a £52 million (2 per cent) overspend on the revised budget.
To cover the excess, the DfE authorised £52 million in “virements” – a transfer of funding from another budget line to the apprenticeships budget.
The DfE told FE Week the higher level of spending was caused by more starts and achievements compared to previous years, as well as increases to some funding bands.
Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said: “This marks a landmark moment after years of unspent funds being returned to the Treasury.
“It reflects the aggregated impact of apprentices already on programme and the financial consequences of increased achievement rates.”
‘Government will face further trade-offs’
Despite spending more on apprenticeships than had been budgeted, the DfE claimed there wasn’t technically an overspend because officials were able to match the full spend through virements.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said: “Small variances to budgets do happen, and in this case a 2 per cent overspend seems to have been offset by underspends elsewhere.”
The DfE refused to say what other budget line was raided to cover the apprenticeship overspend.
FE Week has been reporting on potential apprenticeship overspends since 2018 following an initial warning from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
The issue stems from soaring numbers of higher-level apprenticeships that are more expensive to deliver than lower-level programmes.
A National Audit Office report in 2019 said there was a “clear risk” that apprenticeships were not financially sustainable for the government, as the costs were around double what was expected in 2015.
Pressure was eased when the Covid-19 pandemic hit and numbers of new starters fell. But in 2021-22 DfE’s apprenticeship budget was underspent by just £11 million, or 0.4 per cent.
The underspend in 2022-23 was £96 million (4 per cent) and in 2023-24 it was £16 million (1 per cent).
Almost £2.2 billion of the DfE’s apprenticeship budget has been returned to the Treasury since the levy launched in 2017-18 to 2023-24. No apprenticeship funding was returned to the Treasury in 2024-25.
Treasury boosted the DfE’s apprenticeships budget by 13 per cent to £3.075 billion in 2025-26 owing to the mounting pressure.
‘Future overspends may not be so easily absorbed’
Evans said: “The apprenticeship budget has been basically fully spent for a few years now. Even with the rise to £3 billion this year, there is likely to be limited room for flexibility in the levy outside apprenticeships.
“And prioritising apprenticeships for some groups, like young people, is likely to require reductions for other groups, as we’ve seen recently at level 7. Either the budget needs to rise further, or the government will face further trade-offs in the future.”
There is likely to be a surge in level 7 apprenticeship starts this year before levy funding is switched off in January 2026, and foundation apprenticeships are being rolled out this autumn. Another budget strain could be the potential launch of the new level 2 business administration standard, which is likely to prove highly popular.
The DfE is aiming for 30,000 foundation apprenticeship starts in their first year. Kate Ridley-Pepper, the DfE’s apprenticeships director, recently warned of further potential “savings” and “trade-offs” if the new scheme became too popular.
She told last month’s AELP conference that the level of spending on apprenticeships “is not sustainable in the long run”.
The government also still plans to turn the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy that funds non-apprenticeship training, which will include new short courses from April 2026.
Ashworth said: “We welcome the additional £350 million injected into the 2025-26 budget, which has provided much-needed headroom and helps reduce the impact of Treasury top-slicing in the short-term.
“However, the recent defunding of level 7 apprenticeships won’t deliver quick savings, and in a tight fiscal climate, future overspends may not be so easily absorbed. Greater clarity on apprenticeship funding beyond 2025-26 will be increasingly important for long-term planning and stability.”
Treasury margin shrinks
Mark Corney, senior policy adviser at the Campaign for Learning, said that despite higher levels of apprenticeship spending the Treasury margin is shrinking.
The money raised through employer levy contributions isn’t hypothecated in the sense that it doesn’t determine the apprenticeship budget – this is separately set by the Treasury.
The top-slice is the amount the Treasury keeps after collecting the funds paid by employers and dishing out spending for apprenticeships to the DfE and devolved nations.
This margin was around £800 million in 2024-25.
Corney pointed out that the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) has estimated that total apprenticeship levy paid by businesses in 2025-26 will be £4.2 billion, which is £100 million more than the outturn of £4.1 billion in 2024-25.
The levy raised £91 million more in April to June 2025 than it did in the same period last year.
Corney said Treasury is on track to raise £4.2 billion or more in 2025-26. When the DfE’s £3.075 billion budget is distributed and around £500 million is dished out to the devolved nations, this would leave a top slice of around £623 million.
The decisions taken on AI by colleges and training providers in the next year will fundamentally alter the lives of learners and teachers over the next decade. Already there is enough evidence of both the enormous benefits that well-designed AI systems can offer, and the harm that poorly implemented AI can cause. If AI literacy is not treated as a priority within leadership teams then the risk of harmful AI increases.
You will notice that I haven’t explored the possibility of no AI here. Consumer accessible generative AI applications are already widely used by learners and tutors, and will continue to be so, above or under the radar. They may be used in ways that harm learning or are unethical.
There are many entirely reasonable objections to the current wave of big tech-led AI innovation: it is driven by profit rather than purpose, it replicates societal racial and gender biases, and from a sustainability perspective it has highly negative consequences on the visible horizon. So surely avoidance is the ethical choice?
The consequence of leadership teams not deeply immersing themselves in both risks and opportunities will be that AI is used in harmful ways: bypassing cognitive development, deskilling professionals, creating unfair advantages for those with AI skills, and contracting out critical thinking to technologies that have undoubted flaws
You are an AI organisation already – whether that’s acknowledged or not
If you haven’t developed a systematic approach then you may already be facing the harm that unethical, inequitable and dehumanising AI can cause. Because these technologies are both readily available and widely accessed. You are an AI organisation already – whether that is acknowledged or not.
Ignoring AI may make us feel ethically better but we can shape a better future by using it in a mindful way cognisant of environmental harms, in a human way crafted to improve the knowledge and skills of learners and tutors, and in an equitable way aware of inequalities and poor representation. Some colleges and training providers are doing this now.
It is vital to look at the range of evidence when designing AI systems: to help learners develop their skills, to support tutors in designing personalised and engaging programmes of tuition whilst helping them manage their workload, and support staff in providing richer data insights and better processes. A recent MIT study shows the cognitive deficit when students outsource their learning to AI. It also shows that “brain first, AI later” to help review work is a good combination.
An experiment on the impact of using ChatGPT in lesson planning showed that it saved 30 per cent on preparation time with no impact on lesson quality as assessed by an expert panel. All this emphasises the importance of reviewing the available evidence systematically.
We are seeing some institutions adopt and even develop AI systems that are heavily human, ethics and equity focused. Ofsted has reviewed some of the best practice in its paper“The biggest risk is doing nothing”. Activate Learning has implemented a suite of AI tools, early-stage evaluation of which have shown improved outcomes and well-being. Windsor Forest Colleges Group have developed a teacher support AI, “Winnie”. Basingstoke College of Technology has taken a whole-college approach to upskilling staff and students in AI and giving them a license to innovate responsibly.
Deliberately designing AI systems to stretch learners rather than bypass their learning is key. Developing datasets with fewer systemic biases and training AI on them, including available open-source AI, can help reduce biases.
And we need to widen access to the development of critical thinking and communication skills that enable individuals to adapt to future AI innovations.
Data-safe environments are essential to protect private data. Whilst the actions of one individual or college are not going to significantly dampen environmental impacts, we should be as mindful of the carbon impact of our actions when using AI, just as when driving our car.
The Finnish government has committed to pursuing human-centred and ethical AI, whilst supporting its integration into education. Estonia has encouraged similar whilst leaving education institutions to innovate. Safe, ethical and responsible use is in their national curriculum.
We will be working through our partnerships with sector bodies to see wider adoption of responsible AI. The whole skills community needs to get this right – at a whole system level. There is much that is encouraging in both policy and practice. There now needs to be collective action to make positive, human-centred tech happen.
Across the UK, communities are under strain. Whether it’s the rising cost of living, stretched public services, or deepening political divides, many people feel disconnected, disempowered, and negative about what’s to come. At its heart, this is a crisis of community and pessimism. In my research I’ve identified social connectedness, a sense of agency and access to resources as three protective factors that make communities thrive.
Without connection, agency and resources, people become vulnerable to those who promise simple answers to complex problems. The far right seeks to exploit these issues, but we can stop them by providing a hopeful alternative. Adult education has a role to play in tackling the polarisation we see in our communities.
The challenge
Change isn’t happening fast enough for people who are struggling. The far right is joining together issues like the cost of living, stretched NHS, deindustrialisation and the decline of the high street into a dangerous story of blame. They scapegoat marginalised groups like migrants and refugees, ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community; they also attack the progressive causes (charities, law firms, journalists) who are trying to support these people or shine a light on the difficulties they experience.
At HOPE not hate, we work to challenge the far right and their narratives. But they are skilled communicators. They frame their messages emotionally, exploiting people’s desperation to create a sense of competition and scarcity: that there’s “not enough to go around”, and that some people are taking more than their “fair share”.
Social media amplifies this. Algorithms push sensationalist content and connect together different conspiracies and hateful rhetoric. We have seen how online discourse can spill over into offline violence: the riots following the tragic Southport attack in August last year, or recent events in Ballymena.
Adult learning as part of the solution
I believe adult education can be part of the solution because it is rooted in local communities and designed to build trust, openness and purpose.
The small, group-based learning that takes place through adult learning provider the WEA helps to foster belonging. Learners aren’t just learning new skills, they’re meeting people they might not otherwise cross paths with. In fact, 88 per cent of WEA learners say they met people they wouldn’t normally encounter during their learning. This builds empathy, reduces fear, and helps form the relationships that protect against polarisation.
The WEA has also developed tools to help people navigate today’s information landscape, like an open-access resource on combatting disinformation created with the journalist Amanda Ruggeri. It’s an excellent starting point for the kind of critical thinking that our new digital age demands.
Learning to tackle the far right goes beyond the academic. Publishing facts and ‘myth busting’ can dry up the conversation and escalate arguments about which sources of information are trustworthy or accurate. On the other hand, learning to be curious and ask people why they think what they think and asking open-hearted questions encourages people to understand their thought processes.
The WEA’s work is deeply local. 73 per cent of learners attend sessions in physical venues rather than online, the majority within a three-mile radius of their home. These are often the same venues that host other community services, meaning adult education becomes a gateway into broader civic life. It’s work in Leicester helped support community cohesion after the 2022 unrest.
Adult learning must be funded to succeed
Funding cuts to adult education limit its potential to address the challenges we face today. Investment in children’s education is essential, but often it is used as a long-term fix for problems that are happening right now. We cannot kick the can down the road. Community-based learning for all should have a seat at the table when it comes to broader conversations about cohesion, resilience, and inclusion.
We need government, policymakers and providers to:
Invest in local, community-based learning.
Fund social infrastructure. Shared spaces and opportunities for connection are vital for communities.
Follow through on initiatives like the £1.5 billion neighbourhood plan, ensuring communities can shape their own futures through inclusive strategies.
Let’s be clear: people vulnerable to far-right narratives are not ‘hard to reach’. They’re online, in our workplaces, parents at the school gate. Adult education can and should be part of the national conversation on tackling extremism.
The introduction of assessment principles sets the scene for simplified assessment plans, introducing flexibility into assessment design. This includes opportunities, where appropriate, for provider-led and on-programme assessment. This has stirred up a mix of anticipation and anxiety across the sector. Yet beneath the uncertainty lies a chance to reframe how we design, deliver and assure apprenticeships.
As Catherine Large of Ofqual rightly notes, “This is a recalibration, not a return to the days of framework apprenticeships before the Richard Review”.
It’s a moment to refine – not rewind.
Reforming a comfortable status quo
Traditional assessment plans offer reassurance and comfort through consistency. But comfort is no substitute for efficacy. Current models are increasingly seen as over-engineered and rigid, frequently prioritising standardisation over deliverability and relevance (validity), and often failing to reflect the dynamic realities of delivery across employers and industries. Apprenticeships thrive on responsiveness. From training to assessment, different contexts require different approaches. And that’s not a weakness, it’s a strength!
The new approach lifts the lid on prescription, inviting assessment organisations to make design choices to meet the needs of specific sectors and in some instances individual employers and settings. With increased freedom in design comes increased variation and we must recognise the accompanying risk.
Comparability remains a central topic across many sector groups we engage with. The worry is that varying assessment approaches among organisations could lead to inconsistent learner experiences – prompting legitimate questions around fairness and outcome reliability. However, it’s important not to conflate the concept of variation with a lack of comparability: difference in approach doesn’t inherently compromise the integrity of assessment outcomes.
The on-programme journey already varies by provider and employer; tailored to industry needs, learner profiles, and local contexts. That difference is accepted, even welcomed. So why should assessment be excluded from thoughtful variation?
Different doesn’t mean inconsistent
Variation in delivery isn’t a flaw; it’s a feature of a responsive and modern skills system. Different job roles demand different approaches. Quality doesn’t come from rigid uniformity, it comes from meaningful oversight, sector expertise, and evidence-informed practice.
The worry that decentralising assessment may threaten quality and consistency is valid. But context matters. Across regulated qualification provision, training providers already assess independently – with awarding organisations conducting robust scrutiny under frameworks like Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny Strategies (CASS). This model works and there’s no reason it can’t translate to apprenticeship assessment.
What matters is that assessment design and regulation go hand-in-hand: organisations take ownership of assessment design, while regulators uphold fairness, validity and transparency.
Ofqual is actively responding to these ongoing apprenticeship reforms, having recently launched a public consultation to gather sector views on its proposed revised regulatory framework for apprenticeship assessment.
The proposal sets out key requirements across both the design and delivery of assessments, with a clear focus on mitigating potential risks while upholding consistency in quality, rigour, and fairness.
Ofqual, as an outcome-based regulator, already enables flexibility without sacrificing control. Its framework encourages innovation within boundaries and that philosophy is exactly what apprenticeships now need.
Collaboration drives confidence
For this reform to succeed, it must be co-created. We need DfE, Skills England and Ofqual to better align their timeframes and expectations on delivery of the reform and introduction of new plans and frameworks. This is a major moment of change and it’s important we get it right.
The sector is mobilising with intent, actively engaging in consultation groups, reviewing internal systems, and strengthening connections across stakeholder networks. As momentum builds, it’s vital to recognise the scale of change ahead and ensure that reforms are given the time and space needed to be embedded responsibly and sustainably.
TQUK is proud to be part of that momentum. Regulated since 2013, we understand the balance between adaptability and accountability. And we believe Ofqual’s experience in qualification regulation will bring valuable structure to apprenticeship regulation, ensuring consistency, fairness and confidence in outcomes.
With the right safeguards in place, it could be the recalibration that apprenticeships have been waiting for.
Raising the age to which children must participate in school, college or training to 18 has seen “limited impact” ten years after implementation, a study suggests.
But researchers have said the policy of raising the participation age (RPA) has “untapped potential to expand learning opportunities for young people”, and called for “duties and responsibilities” for the policy to be re-assessed.
The participation age was raised from 16 to 17 in 2013 and then to 18 in 2015, in a bid to tackle the fact 10.3 per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds at the time were not in education, employment or training (NEET).
The RPA was introduced after the 2008 education and skills act included provisions for all children to stay in education or training for longer.
Now a report by the University of Bath, FFT Education Datalab, Institute of Policy Research and the Edge Foundation has found an overall reduction in sustained participation among 16 to 18 year olds. Data also shows an increase in the NEET rate.
‘Hasty’ implementation
The idea of raising the compulsory age was to improve teenagers’ “qualification attainment and acquisition of skills, as well as their future employment and earning potential”.
But implementation of the policy was “hasty”, the report found, as it was “delivered in a climate of economic austerity, a change in government, and accompanied change to education management” within local authorities.
The IRP studied data covering all pupils in England state schools in the years immediately before and after the policy was implemented. They also looked at case studies of local authorities Blackpool, Bristol, Norfolk, Sunderland, Wandsworth and Worcestershire.
Data showed the RPA was not associated with large changes.
While there was some initial improvement in participation for year 12s and 13s, there was also an increase in mid-year dropouts. The sustained participation rate reduced by around 2 percentage points compared with cohorts unaffected by the RPA.
Boys drove the increase in overall participation in year 12. Girls had a larger reduction in FE participation, while participation among black students reduced much more than other groups.
“We find there was a limited impact of the policy on overall participation in education or training during the first two years post-16,” said Datalab’s Dave Thomson and the IPR’s Matt Dickson in a blog post.
‘Untapped potential’
Young people are met with structural, institutional, social and personal barriers which prevent their participation, the report warned.
In particular, cuts to local authority budgets means they struggle to deliver their RPA duties, with timely reporting of student dropouts “lacking”.
Careers education is “inconsistent in quality, with non-academic routes unevenly covered”, researchers added.
Thomson and Dickson said the research “at times presents a bleak picture but we do finish with a cautious note of optimism.
“We see the RPA policy as having untapped potential to expand learning opportunities for young people, and with that in mind, offer a series of recommendations to find ways of offering earlier intervention during the post-16 phase.”
The report calls for duties and responsibilities of the RPA to be reassessed, with much closer alignment between the Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions needed.
Other recommendations included equipping LAs with better resources to fulfil their duties, commissioning an assessment of the post-16 maths and English resit model and introducing attendance performance measures.
